Its easy to vote if all you need is a person to vouch for you. Why is it a person can vote without an ID but you cant buy cigarettes or alcohol? Anyone in their right mind would protect the integrity of voting. Hell if you don't have an ID on you a person can get in trouble. If you cant afford an ID one will be given to you issued by the state. The system we live in is made to keep us all on the hamster wheel never to get off. Pulled in so many directions and fighting so many fronts. The deck is stacked kids. Believe it.

warmonger1981 wrote:Its easy to vote if all you need is a person to vouch for you. Why is it a person can vote without an ID but you cant buy cigarettes or alcohol? Anyone in their right mind would protect the integrity of voting. Hell if you don't have an ID on you a person can get in trouble. If you cant afford an ID one will be given to you issued by the state. The system we live in is made to keep us all on the hamster wheel never to get off. Pulled in so many directions and fighting so many fronts. The deck is stacked kids. Believe it.

Do you realize how many people would be eliminated on account of not having a valid ID? That particular demographic could not be heard and I feel this would be a more damaging scenario.

In Minnesota you would of been able to vote without an ID. Apply for one and the state will issue one free. come back prove you are who you say you are and your vote will count. But that was shot down. A person can still vouch for another at the booth without that person having an ID. So your telling me its ok to have no checks in the system as it will disenfranchise people? So in other words I should be able to vouch for my buddy to buy liquor or go to the club. Well what if my friend is underage? That seems less of an impact on the whole as a society as to false voting. I feel as serious as voting is you better prove you are a citizen. Otherwise if most countries has laws like that I could fly around and vote in those countries on the I'm vouching method.

warmonger1981 wrote:In Minnesota you would of been able to vote without an ID. Apply for one and the state will issue one free. come back prove you are who you say you are and your vote will count. But that was shot down. A person can still vouch for another at the booth without that person having an ID. So your telling me its ok to have no checks in the system as it will disenfranchise people? So in other words I should be able to vouch for my buddy to buy liquor or go to the club. Well what if my friend is underage? That seems less of an impact on the whole as a society as to false voting. I feel as serious as voting is you better prove you are a citizen. Otherwise if most countries has laws like that I could fly around and vote in those countries on the I'm vouching method.

I understand your fear and I'm not advocating the ill effects/possibilities of the current system, it's just that instating this rule might overall be adverse since many people would object to even the application process for an ID, which I feel is their right. I was also thinking that perhaps the ID thing for voting and for buying liquor may not be equal since things like drinking, driving, marriage, etc., vary from state to state while the presidential vote works on a national level. In other words, they aren't in the same boat.

It was I guess more of a basic principle. Lets not bicker about who is right of wrong. Opinions are mutually appreciated I hope. Lets get back the the thread fine sir. George Bush and the council on foreign relations did it.

I think anyone who believes in multiple conspiracy theories, are probably a little naive.I think anyone that summarily dismisses conspiracy theories, are probably a little naive.

It is much easier to just choose to believe one way or the other, and not give it any more thought, and as long as you dont mind believing in the wrong thing, that is probably the best thing to do for you.

I think, however, if you are truly interested, in understanding the world in which you live, it is important to actually do some research on topics you have interest in, and especially topics you have strong emotions about. For once you have decided something is one way, your brain, will continue to convince itself its right with no additional information whatsoever. You are psychologically programmed, to further whatever beliefs you have right now, and will solidify them, just by thinking about them. Its a scientifically proven fact.

Essentially, we are all driving on a rotary of beliefs, with many roads branching off in different directions. If you choose to ignore the map and GPS, and jump onto one of those roads, its unlikely you will ever get back to that rotary. You will drive on that particular road your entire life, and come to believe it is the right one, almost no matter what, and use the many, many roadsigns along the way to justify your position. However, there is only one road, and unless you are truly informed, you probably should hang out on that rotary a little longer, if you really want to get to your destination. Some of us have jumped on one of those roads, with no meaningful research, and driven down them so fast, that invariably, instead of ending up in Florida on a cozy beach, we will end up in Alaska, freezing. And while you will enjoy Alaska for its beauty, and no doubt make a productive life in those surroundings, there is still no doubt, you failed at your original objective, and most will be too psychologically stubborn, to just buy a ticket(research) and fly back to where they originally wanted to be.(the truth.)

When rashly deciding what events took place, and discounting the possibility of others, discounting the possibility that you are wrong, you essentially insure that you will be wrong. If however, you keep an open mind about nearly everything, or rigorously investigate unbiased information about those topics...you can instead, possibly, get to that beautiful beach, with margarita in hand, and not end up with a frostbitten willy, and explain to everyone that you absolutely made the right choice, through your clicking teeth to the end.

_sabotage_ wrote:1. I don't believe that the government is incompetent, I just believe that their competence revolves around their own interests, and that their interests aren't tied to the peoples.2. Didn't need tens of thousands, needed a few. All they had to do was let a threat take form and add a few touches.3. The NYTimes released info on the 6 warnings Bush received, and yet this thread states that anyone who thinks Bush had advanced knowledge is a conspiracist. 4. It's not a select few, it's millions of people and many major media has reported great doubts on the official story internationally, though seldom in the US.5. CIA provided Bush with six warnings, FBI reports that they were impeded from doing their job, DoD were the folks saying it was a hoax to deflect attention from Saddam.

And yes, my position remains that until the laws of physics are changed to fit the scenario, then reality will just have to do.

If I only led creationist books and refused to read science books--cuz they're propaganda, then the "evidence" of creationism would seem strong, wouldn't it?

Have you read The New Pearl Harbour? How about Shock Doctrine? I never said I haven't read any books about the official account, I just choose not to read any more. Have you read any of the literature pointing to an inside job?

Again, this thread holds the simple premise that Bush having advanced knowledge is a conspiracy theory, and yet him receiving six warnings has been verified. So what's your take, you seem to enjoy taking a dig at mine.

The underlined reminds me of the problem with The Day of Deceit, which makes similar claims about FDR being aware of an attack on Pearl Harbor and allowing it to happen. I'm not too interested in this conversation, so I'll make it short. Basically, there's a time-lag in intelligence reports--from the moment the intelligence (and not the raw information) is produced and when the relevant decision-makers actually read it--or some watered-down version. Then there's a range of reports which state contradictory claims, so there's an uncertainty about what may happen. But the conspiracy theorist can ignore this uncertainty and that time-gap at the time of the decision-maker by only referring to 20% of that range of intelligence reports. They can make it seem like the decision-maker knew what would happen because the CT simply failed to mention the other 80% of the reports and their conflicting warnings/concerns.

So, if either Shock Doctrine or The New Pearl Harbour make the underlined claim, then my above concerns are valid. This would require cross-referencing the various intelligence reports which were made available to the president at that time. Hopefully, the FOIA and that process would allow for such a time-consuming endeavor. I would not be surprised if either book did similar research to The Day of Deceit's, thus have failed in supporting the claim that Bush received six warnings. Perhaps, Bush received six warnings, but each one was vague, and the authors neglected to mention the other 20 or so warnings pointing to other places other than NY and were referring to different means (trucks, instead of airplanes). Maybe you can comment on these concerns of mine, and how those books handle that issue.

I think I have mentioned a few times before, but the report of the 6 warnings is from the New York Times (7 according to other sources), written three months ago after the warnings were finally released and the correlating testimony of senior members of the White House and Pentagon staff of the time.

Of course the rag isn't well respected, neither are the BBC, the Washington Post, CBC, Scientific America, Harper's or other media outlets.

Nor are the professors at Berkeley, OSU, Perdue, Penn State, U of T, Stanford and more than 300 other universities who have challenged the official account.

Nor does the testimony of more than a hundred on site firefighters matter.

I guess the 9/11 commissioners don't matter as well, since the co-chairmen say they were obstructed by the White House and CIA.

Nor do the victims' families matter, since more than 70% of their questions have been ignored and unanswered.

Nor do the witnesses who gave testimony at the 9/11 commission matter, since anything that fell outside the official story was discarded, and they were then gagged.

Nor do whistle blowers matter, since they only sacrificed their careers to come forward.

Nor do the 2,000 plus scientists, military personnel and engineers matter, since they are only staking their credibility on it.

Nor do foreign politicians and intel agencies matter, since they contradict the story.

Nor do physics or investigative technique apply. Nor does it matter that the president refused to speak under oath. Nor does it matter that extreme amounts of money were gained through 9/11. That the WTC security was run by Bush's cousin, that NORAD and NMCC failed for the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th times in their history all on the same day, that the missile defense systems of both the White house and Pentagon failed. That even more than an hour after the first hijacking we still couldn't do anything about the fourth. That 3 buildings got hit and four fell. That the owner of the buildings claimed he "pulled" one.

The only thing that matters is that a Bush staffer says it was legit, of course that another quit and says Bush was complicit doesn't matter. I should ignore all these things and read the works of a guy who was instrumental in the war in Iraq.

Interesting ideas you have there. That we should ignore the past, present and future of the event and focus on something that we can't prove. Usually when all the evidence points away from a conclusion, we tend to look at the direction it points, but in this case, it's such a small thing really, why bother?

And BTW, the Shock Doctrine is a book on economic policies and The New Pearl Habour is a book of testimony and scientific analysis.

AndyDufresne wrote:BBS, all those Nor Do's are you going to make you hard.

--Andy

Well, like a typical conspiracy theorist, he ignored a valid point about his "6 warnings to Bush" thing while releasing an unrelated smoke screen. He lasted about 3 exchanges, so...

He's still just as nutty as viceroy, premio, and the other creationists, who continue to ignore the relevant literature, but hey, ya can't save 'em all.

So you know 9/11 very very well. He only had 6 months to prevent 9/11 from the first report he read.

You make a valid point, I grant that 6 months is a short period of time. But I also would like to again point out that the original chart says that Bush having advanced knowledge of 9/11 is a conspiracy theory, yet, even if there were conflicting reports, he still clearly had advanced knowledge, whether he believed it or not.

But you seem to be sinking to name calling instead of basing your retorts on fact. So, below is a nice video for you to use in your decimation of my theory. You do promote the inclusion of counter evidence, please lead by example, and I will be glad to follow.

AndyDufresne wrote:BBS, all those Nor Do's are you going to make you hard.

--Andy

Well, like a typical conspiracy theorist, he ignored a valid point about his "6 warnings to Bush" thing while releasing an unrelated smoke screen. He lasted about 3 exchanges, so...

He's still just as nutty as viceroy, premio, and the other creationists, who continue to ignore the relevant literature, but hey, ya can't save 'em all.

So you know 9/11 very very well. He only had 6 months to prevent 9/11 from the first report he read.You make a valid point, I grant that 6 months is a short period of time. But I also would like to again point out that the original chart says that Bush having advanced knowledge of 9/11 is a conspiracy theory, yet, even if there were conflicting reports, he still clearly had advanced knowledge, whether he believed it or not.

But you seem to be sinking to name calling instead of basing your retorts on fact. So, below is a nice video for you to use in your decimation of my theory. You do promote the inclusion of counter evidence, please lead by example, and I will be glad to follow.

1. You created a smoke screen in order to ignore my criticism. (recall the "nor do... nor do... nor do... nor do.." rampage).

2. The underlined shows that you don't understand my criticism.

3. When you drop straw man fallacies like, "Interesting ideas you have there. That we should ignore the past, present and future of the event and focus on something that we can't prove. Usually when all the evidence points away from a conclusion, we tend to look at the direction it points, but in this case, it's such a small thing really, why bother?"

Then, I'll simply use #3 and #1 to justify comparing you to viceroy and those others.

I'm just sayin that the alleged intelligence Bush received may only be a fraction of other reports he received which made contradictory claims. The CT usually will omit those latter reports, write about the ones that sort of sound like 9-11, and then conclude, "AH-HA! HE KNEW!" which is total bullshit. Just wondering if that's what you've been doing, and how your sources deal with this problem.